President Obama yesterday insulted anyone skeptical of the "consensus view" of the cause and impact of climate change, by referring to them as "the Flat Earth society". He used that same insult a couple of years ago when he derided those calling for more oil and gas drilling as "flat earthers".........before undeservedly taking credit for increased oil and gas production ahead of the last election. And he wonders why he can never get anything done.

This is one time where BHO is actually being transparent. With all the scandels swirling around him, he tries to step back in time (mid 90's) to bring up something very old as an attempt at distraction.
It's quite transparent.
He's even threatening executive orders against the coal miners and their families, to give his distraction the ability to suck the O2 out of his other problems.
Classy._________________I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.

The "scandals"swirling around O began when Limbaugh said the recession was caused by Obamas failed policies.
Obama had been elected but not yet sworn in at the time, so the GOP had to wait a few months to start the "scandal" generating machine up again.
Oops.

Ironic that Mrgybe would complain of the President's condescending remarks on the "flat earthers".

But, I have to agree that the insult has no purpose in the dialogue. Politics has become so polarized that the President appears to not care about reaching a consensus on climate control. He is forging ahead with his own plan. Objections be damned.

The politics is disturbing. The adversarial process has become so ingrained, between this Congress and this President, that compromises are not sought. I place the blame, squarely, on both sides.

While I am an advocate of renewable electric power generation, I do not see the President's plan working. Controlling the power industry through the regulatory process, rather than the legislative process, will only set up a pattern where future administrations will alternate between more and less stringent regulations. This makes planning for the power suppliers difficult and expensive with constant guessing on the direction of the regulations and the possibility of retroactive enforcement.

Harsher regulations on our coal burning energy plants, (keeping mind, only ours, not anybody elses outside of our boarders, just ours) will drastically drive up our energy costs, it can't be helped.
People will loose jobs.
Businesses use up a ton of energy, and if it's a manufacturing company, your are using way more than even that.
How are you going to be able to afford those increases in energy costs?
You may have to start laying people off.
Then those unemployed people will have to go home and face their own increased electric bills, fine deal. Then they find out that the gas has gone up as well, refineries use electricity as do gas pumps, shit!
And for what?_________________I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.

CB--I disagree about the wisdom of Obama's remarks, and you at least, deserve an explanation of why they make sense in a larger grasp of policy strategy.

There will be no Congressional action on climate change because the combination of magical thinkers and oil money, and the rather arcane rules of the institution, make such impossible. I would support a carbon tax as the most cost-effective approach to reducing emissions. Such an approach was backed by both Jim Hansen, the NOAA scientist who did much of the pioneering work on global warming:

Quote:

Eminent climatologist James Hansen will urge U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to support a carbon tax, in a letter to be sent this week, Hansen said.
Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, is one of the leading voices for a carbon tax to address climate change, rather than backing the more widely used cap-and-trade approach. In his plan, Hansen recommends levying a rising tax on fossil fuels and redistributing 100 percent of the proceeds to taxpayers - a "tax and dividend" approach

and the head of Exxon:

Quote:

The world's biggest oil company, Exxon Mobil, has softened its hardline position on climate change by throwing its weight behind a tax on carbon emissions.

In a significant shift in stance, Exxon's chief executive, Rex Tillerson, told an audience in Washington that he considered a tax to be a fairer route to curbing emissions than a cap-and-trade system of pollution allocations.

"As a businessman it is hard to speak favourably about any new tax," said Tillerson. "But a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach."

Until recently, Exxon was reluctant even to concede that greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for global warming. The company has faced mounting pressure over its environmental policies, culminating in a shareholder rebellion at its annual meeting last year led by members of the oil-rich Rockefeller family.

Yet the combination of know-nothings, and a propaganda machine that is dismissive of science and willing to spend vast sums on unscrupulous consultants to try to create doubt about the science of CO2 impacts, has created a stalemate in Congress.

So be it, with the chances for legislative change gone until, at earliest, a new Congress is seated after the midterm elections, Obama has not merely administrative authority, but Supreme court authorization to act under the Clean Air Act. How quickly the carbon folks forget this case:

Quote:

By Linda Greenhouse

Published: Tuesday, April 3, 2007

WASHINGTON — The new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on carbon dioxide emissions is a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority.

The ruling does not force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate auto emissions, but the agency would almost certainly face further legal action if it fails to do so.

In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Monday that the agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions.

The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

Obama has now made it clear that he will use this authority--and knows that the oil industry will fight him tooth and nail, as they have for the last 6 years. I could give you supporting citations for the flat earth comment, from mrgybe's disparaging of peer-reviewed climate science, to the comments of a Florida legislator that scientists need to read the bible to realize that God promised not to destroy the world with water again. Or you could find your own examples of stunning ignorance by Jim Inhofe--who says he has proof it is all a hoax.

In support of that we have the poorly informed comments here of NW, who claims:

Quote:

Harsher regulations on our coal burning energy plants, (keeping mind, only ours, not anybody elses outside of our boarders, just ours) will drastically drive up our energy costs, it can't be helped.
People will loose jobs.

Somehow failing to realize that natural gas prices have dropped because of fracking, and that has made coal uncompetitive. But you can always blame it on Obama if your from the reality free world.

Finally, the irony of mrgybe professing faux hurt feelings about Obama's comment is particularly funny. Here comes the master of insult, the snarkmaster himself, who rarely explains but usually insults. With the oil companies attacking Obama constantly, he expects diplomacy? These are the same folks who depict Obama as weak when he deploys diplomacy--yet attack him when it is time to be firm and assertive. The only coherent thread through this slalom course is Obama-hatred--and oil profit love.

I have to say that I support President Obama's leadership on stricter regulations and emissions. As shown in the past, a tightening of the sources of air pollution has yielded significant improvements over time that directly benefit society and the environment. Stricter limits on emissions will actively promote innovation, and it will create meaningful jobs here in the US. Will it make things more expensive overall? I have no doubt that it will, at least for a while. Nevertheless, we have to remember that quality isn't about how cheaply we can get things done. Time after time, its been proven that we can realize credible savings in efficiency and better design. All we have to do is look at the progress that has been made in automobile emissions and efficiency since the late 60s. Although off topic, look how automobile safety has also been improved over the same period through regulatory control. Such great strides arguably couldn't have been achieved any other way. Looking back now at all the arguments and negativity generated by those that fought emission controls and improved efficiency illustrates just how wrong they were. Did it bust the bank and lay us all penniless? Hardly.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum